Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: communications satellite insurance rates
Message-ID: <1616@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 14:42:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1616
Posted: Thu Sep 19 14:42:07 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 13:16:43 EDT
References: <536@petrus.UUCP> <528@riccb.UUCP> <539@petrus.UUCP> <530@riccb.UUCP> <563@petrus.UUCP>
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 33

Re your question about "why can't they just plan to deploy satellites
early in the first place and get it over with?" -- I, too, want to know the
answer to that!

I include below an extract of a posting I made right after seeing the
news about the sunshade problem on the last mission. There was never
any answer to this query posted that I ever saw. 

Old posting extract:

From postnews Wed Aug 28 16:41:01 1985
Subject: Satellite deployal and bad-weather launch
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Distribution: net

The TV news stories on the Australian satellite said that, due to the
jammed sunshield and the consequent overexposure to sunlight, that
satellite was deployed a day ahead of time. My question is: if it could
be launched when it was -- that is, there was an earlier launch window
for the required orbit -- why was it planned to delay the extra day in
the first place? I would think that it would be in everyone's best
interests to get those satellites out of the cargo bay and into orbit
ASAP. What, if anything, was changed by deploying this satellite "a day
early" -- were some checkouts rushed, or other experiment start-ups
delayed, or other undesireable effects incurred by this action?

[... "marginal weather" portion deleted here ...]

Regards,
Will Martin

UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
*** End of old posting ***


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com